JUDGMENT Virendra Kumar Singhal, J.—The petitioner is having a coffee estate and is an assessee under the Karnataka Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1957. 2. The dispute is with regard to the assessment year 1982-83, i.e., the previous year ending on March 31, 1982. In accordance with the provisions of Section 18 of the Karnataka Agricultural Income Tax Act ("the Act" for short), the return was due on May 31, 1982. There is a provision for seeking extension of time under Section 61 of the Act. The petitioner applied for extension in submitting the return on March 25, 1982, which was granted to him by the assessing authority vide endorsement dated June 5, 1982, till September 30, 1982. The petitioner was charged interest for the delayed submission of the return in accordance with the extension granted and instalments granted and paid in October, 1982, December 1982, and February 1983. In the meantime, the Act was amended by Act No. 14 of 1983 and the said amendment was made applicable to assessment of agricultural income derived during any previous year ending on or after March 31, 1982. Section 18 of the principal Act was amended and for the words "first June every year", the words "expiry of four months from the end of the previous year" were substituted. 3. The proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the amending Act also provided that the return of agricultural income for the previous year ending on or after March 31, 1982, but before the date of commencement of the Karnataka Agricultural Income Tax (Amendment) Act, 1983, shall be filed within four months from the date of commencement of the said Act. It is on the basis of this amendment, it is submitted that the petitioner is not liable for payment of any interest in respect of the return which was submitted on September 29, 1982, because the Act was amended on May 5, 1983, retrospectively, and the order of the assessing authority extending the time cannot override the provisions of the Act. 4. The submission of learned counsel for the respondent is that since the petitioner himself has applied for extension of time and has made the payment of tax along with the interest, he is not entitled for any refund of the interest paid. 5. I have considered the matter. The provisions of Act No. 14 of 1983 are retrospective in nature. The submission of learned counsel for the respondent is that since the petitioner himself has applied for extension of time and has made the payment of tax along with the interest, he is not entitled for any refund of the interest paid. 5. I have considered the matter. The provisions of Act No. 14 of 1983 are retrospective in nature. The petitioner was a law abiding citizen and could not have foreseen the amendment at the time when the application for extension of time for submission of return was made by him. If the interpretation of learned counsel for the respondent is taken to be correct, it would mean that the benefit could be given only to the defaulters and not to the law abiding citizens. The provisions of the Amending Act No. 14 of 1983 cannot be considered in a manner so as to discriminate between the assessees who have submitted their returns late either on their own or on the basis of any permission given by the assessing authority. The order of the assessing authority extending the time has become superfluous by virtue of the retrospective amendment. It is cardinal principle of taxation law that no tax can be levied or collected without the authority of law and the same principles have been embodied under Article 265 of the Constitution of India. The nature of interest is not that of tax but is incidental to tax in the nature of additional tax which the assessee has to pay additionally because of the delayed payment of tax. At the most, it could be said that the interest is compensatory in nature for delayed payment of tax and, therefore, acquires the same character to some extent so far as the liability to pay interest is concerned. 6. Section 61 of the Act provides for extension of time. The position is made clear by the proviso which fixes the liability for making the payment of interest. 6. Section 61 of the Act provides for extension of time. The position is made clear by the proviso which fixes the liability for making the payment of interest. The proviso to Section 61 has also been amended by Act No. 14 of 1983, which reads as follows : "Provided that no such extension shall be granted unless the asses-see undertakes to pay, in addition to the tax payable, interest at twelve per cent per annum on the tax due as per the return from the due date specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 18 up to the date of actual payment of such tax." 7. Earlier to this amendment, conditions could have been imposed by the assessing authority. But this proviso which has to be applied makes it clear that the liability to pay 12 per cent. per annum will be on the "tax due" as per the return from the "due date" specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 18 up to the date of actual payment of tax. Since the due date was extended till March 31, 1983, under Section 18 itself, no interest was payable under Section 61. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner cannot be saddled with the liability of interest. 8. Interest levied is, therefore, quashed. Adjustment of the said amount to be given in the tax liability if any and if there is excess amount it may be refunded in accordance with law. 9. Writ petitions are accordingly allowed. Annexure-F to K stand modified in accordance with the directions given above.